httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jim Jagielski <...@jaguNET.com>
Subject Re: mod_define ported to httpd 2.0/2.2
Date Fri, 25 Aug 2006 14:10:39 GMT

On Aug 25, 2006, at 9:35 AM, Nick Kew wrote:

> On Friday 25 August 2006 14:05, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>> I've never been a fan of mod_define, seeing mod_macro (as
>> Jorge seems to think as well) as much more useful...
>
> Agreed, mod_macro is *the* configuration module:-)
>

:)

>> check
>> out some of my OLD Apache PPTs from the 1st ApacheCons ;)
>> My main issue with mod_define is that there always seemed to
>> be such potential for issues and conflicts, esp when you
>> have rewrite rules, etc...
>
> The argument in favour is that we do periodically get requests
> for variable interpolation in various directives.  A general framework
> would have some value.  But to be really useful, it'll have
> to deal with both config-time and request-time interpolation
> without confusing the hell out of the lusers.  And probably
> other issues I haven't thought about.
>

Many many many years ago (relatively speaking) there was
healthy debate and discussion on having this be native
to Apache or whether 'm4' was good enough... The idea
that people who needed this functionality would be
better served by having an out-of-process job create
the httpd.conf file for you, instead of Apache doing
it all during config time...

I've setup several complex sites which do just that. During
the web server startup process, before apachectl is called,
a Perl script (I'd do it in Ruby now but that's besides the
point) creates a httpd.conf file from pulling in lots
of external info and thus creating it on-the-fly. mod_macro
is useful for such a template-like setup.


Mime
View raw message